### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60839

PRO

- LIFE MISSISSIPPI; DANA CHISHOLM; ESTER MANN; JOHN BREKEEN; LAURA DURAN; DOUG LANE; RONALD NEDERHOED; BERKELEY OSTRANDER; CALVIN ZASTROW,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v. LINDSAY HORTON, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Jackson, Mississippi; JESSE ROBINSON, Individually and in his official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; JAMES MCGOWAN , Individually and in his official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; MARY JAMES, Individually and in her official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; MARIE HAMPTON, Ind ividually and in her official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; JAMES ROSS, Individually and in his official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; WILLIS THOMAS, Individu ally and in his official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; UNKNOWN OFFICERS 1

- 10, Individually and in their official capacity as an Officers for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; CITY OF JACKSO N, MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:14

- CV

- 568

Before JOLLY , JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60839 Document: 00513327715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2016No. 14

- 60839

2 PER CURIAM: *
We have reviewed the briefs and the record . The parties have fully argued the case before us. We are satisfied that the district court neither abused its discretion nor clearly erred in concluding that the plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction

. Entitlement to a prelimina ry injunction requires that the pla intiffs must show four factors: likelihood of success on the merits ; “irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; that the irre parable injury outweighs any harm to the other side; and that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank , 805 F.3d 573, 579 (5th Cir. 2015). The district

court , after a five

- day hearing, found t hat the plaintiffs had not shown that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their underl y ing § 1983 claims. The plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for injunctive relief turn on a fact

- intensive inquiry and credibility assessments

. We review a district court’s factual and credibility
determinations with great deference

. United States v. Powers , 168 F.3d 741, 753 (5th Cir. 1999)

. This appeal is no exception. Thus, we hold that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. We emphasize that we have reached no opinion whatsoever on the ultimate merits of the case. The district court’s denial of the preliminary inj unc tion is AFFIRMED

. We return the c ase to the district court for such further proceedings as are appropriate.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 14-60839 Document: 00513327715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2016